Say what you will about Matt Drudge, he breaks more than his fair share of news stories. This particular item is a letter written by a W. Bush presidential aide and accomplished right-wing policy scholar, John DiIulio to ESQUIRE Magazine that Drudge somehow got his hands on.
Here are some very disconcerting excerpts:
Clinton was “the natural,” a leader with a genuine interest in the policy process who encouraged information-rich decision-making. Clinton was the policy-wonk-in-chief. The Clinton administration drowned in policy intellectuals and teemed with knowledgeable people interested in making government work. Every domestic issue drew multiple policy analyses that certainly weighted politics, media messages, legislative strategy, et cetera, but also strongly weighted policy-relevant information, stimulated substantive policy debate, and put a premium on policy knowledge. That is simply not Bush’s style. It fits not at all with his personal cum presidential character. The Bush West Wing is very nearly at the other end of this Clinton policy-making continuum.
…what [Bush] needed, I thought then and still do now, was more policy-relevant information, discussion, and deliberation. In eight months, I heard many, many staff discussions, but not three meaningful, substantive policy discussions. There were no actual policy white papers on domestic issues. There were, truth be told, only a couple of people in the West Wing who worried at all about policy substance and analysis, and they were even more overworked than the stereotypical, non-stop, 20-hour-a-day White House staff. Every modern presidency moves on the fly, but, on social policy and related issues, the lack of even basic policy knowledge, and the only casual interest in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking-discussions by fairly senior people who meant Medicaid but were talking Medicare; near-instant shifts from discussing any actual policy pros and cons to discussing political communications, media strategy, et cetera. Even quite junior staff would sometimes hear quite senior staff pooh-pooh any need to dig deeper for pertinent information on a given issue.
This gave rise to what you might call Mayberry Machiavellis-staff, senior and junior, who consistently talked and acted as if the height of political sophistication consisted in reducing every issue to its simplest, black-and-white terms for public consumption, then steering legislative initiatives or policy proposals as far right as possible. These folks have their predecessors in previous administrations (left and right, Democrat and Republican), but, in the Bush administration, they were particularly unfettered.
The “faith bill” saga also illustrates the relative lack of substantive concern for policy and administration. I had to beg to get a provision written into the executive orders that would require us to conduct an actual information-gathering effort related to the president’s interest in the policy. With the exception of some folks at OMB, nobody cared a fig about the five-agency performance audit, and we got less staff help on it than went into any two PR events or such. Now, of course, the document the effort produced (Unlevel Playing Field) is cited all the time, and frames the administrative reform agenda that-or so the Mayberry Machiavellis had insisted-had no value.
Karl [Rove] is enormously powerful, maybe the single most powerful person in the modern, post-Hoover era ever to occupy a political advisor post near the Oval Office. The Republican base constituencies, including beltway libertarian policy elites and religious right leaders, trust him to keep Bush “43” from behaving like Bush “41” and moving too far to the center or inching at all center-left. Their shared fiction, supported by zero empirical electoral studies, is that “41” lost in ’92 because he lost these right-wing fans. There are not ten House districts in America where either the libertarian litany or the right-wing religious policy creed would draw majority popular approval, and, most studies suggest, Bush “43” could have done better versus Gore had he stayed more centrist, but, anyway, the fiction is enshrined as fact. Little happens on any issue without Karl’s okay, and, often, he supplies such policy substance as the administration puts out.
…a year after 9/11 and with a White House that can find time enough to raise $140 million for campaigns, it’s becoming fair to ask, on domestic policy and compassionate conservatism, “Where’s the beef?”
**
And yet that was one of the favorite tools of Clinton-bashing by these very same people. Not that they invented it, either.
Not a surprise, but also just one person’s viewpoint, too - or maybe an agenda.
Well, then undoubtedly Bush will be voted out in 2004.
Although when I proposed a wager on that point, the rush to respond was… somewhat less than packed. But maybe times have changed.
If Bush’s White House is so misguided, I wonder why his popularity was enough to influence the mid-term elections?
Because they devote all their energies to creating a positive image and influencing voters, not developing policies that can actually improve the country.
Could this charge not be leveled at the Clinton, or any other, administration? Sounds like bullshit politics as usual to me.
Never underestimate the etc.
[quote]
[QUOTE]
Yeah, they said the same thing about Ronnie Reagan, Bricker .
I’m too much of a cynic to believe otherwise.
Squink
December 4, 2002, 9:57pm
10
The story of DiIulio’s double apology for the remarks also provides some interesting insights into the machinations of the Bush team. Just how did they induce DiIulio to make his second, more abject retraction ?in bowdlerized form . :rolleyes:
DiIulio issued two statements, the first generally standing by his criticism, the second — similar to Fleischer’s comment — calling his own allegations “groundless and baseless due to poorly chosen words and examples.”
Sounds to me like big brother threatened to put the screws to him.
Every domestic issue drew multiple policy analyses that certainly weighted politics, media messages, legislative strategy, et cetera, but also strongly weighted policy-relevant information, stimulated substantive policy debate, and put a premium on policy knowledge.
Perhaps, but the impression I, and I believe the vast majority of Americans, hold, is politicians care far more about appearances than actual results.
Just to note: he was never actually voted in .
In fact, more than 3/4 of the American electorate did not vote for Bush. I will wager anything you like that less than 30% of the electorate will vote for Bush in 2004.
*Originally posted by UncleBeer *
I’d agree to that. The debate is whether Bush is more guilty of it than most.
If that’s the debate, why didn’t ya say so? It’s gonna be damned short tho’, ain’t it>?
It won’t be a short debate if conservatives can make a case that the Fleischer statement is correct, DiIulio was wrong, and Bush isn’t substituting rhetoric and campaigning for actual policy initiatives.
ElJeffe
December 4, 2002, 10:30pm
18
I don’t think this story is particularly indicting of anything. Every adminisatration is going to have dissenters, some of them particularly whiny. One of the whinier ones happened to grant an interview to Esquire, was reprimanded for exercising poor judgement, and apologized. Not exactly breaking news.
Chumpsky:
Yeah, but about 1/2 of the electorate didn’t vote against him, either. 1/2 the electorate decided they really didn’t give a damn, and as far as I’m concerned, they’re not really worth consideration. If you don’t vote, you haven’t earned the right to bitch about the State of the Union.
Jeff
Bricker
December 4, 2002, 10:39pm
19
*Originally posted by Chumpsky *in .
In fact, more than 3/4 of the American electorate did not vote for Bush. I will wager anything you like that less than 30% of the electorate will vote for Bush in 2004. **
I think his goal is to get re-elected, not to achieve more than 30% of the electorate’s votes.
So if you’ll bet me anything I like that he won’t be re-elected, then let’s talk.
*Originally posted by ElJeffe *
Do you have any comment on the allegations of said “whiner,” or is a blanket dismissal the basis of your argument?